The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates

reply to post by ImaFungi

ok,,, perfect then,,,,, i must celebrate the fact that that guy shot up the movie theatre,,,, hes just exercising his right,, it should be expected right?

The right to arms if for defense. Why would you use the actions of a criminal to argue that innocent people have no right to defend themselves? Why would you think such an argument moral, just, or ethical?

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
Because, that town already has very restrictive gun laws.

Do you even know the gun laws in Aurora, CO? How restrictive is 'unlawful to carry a concealed weapon'? That's the only restriction.

If one armed gun owner had been there, much of this senseless tragedy could have been muted. Maybe only a couple of people would have died before a responsible gun owner put this mad dog down. We will never know because foolish liberals and their sheepish followers always blame the inanimate object instead of the true culprit.

We will never know, but I argue that very little would've been accomplished had one other person been armed. A dark room filled with tear gas, a man with a semi-automatic rifle with thousands of rounds and covered head to toe in ballistic armor.

The only reason this guy stopped shooting was because his gun overheated.

Originally posted by ImaFungi



because im saying hypothetically,,.,..,.,. what if after everyone is carrying a gun,,..,,.,.,.,. say everyone is carrying a gun.,.,.,,. in ten years what if the murder rates sky rocket,,,,,, do you think anything should be done?

Your hypothetical scenario is unrealistic becaue existing data proves contrary to your hypothesis.

The only reason this guy stopped shooting was because his gun overheated.

Yeah well he still had 3 others

Seriously?


And all body armor or "ballistic protection" is not made equal some can't withstand multiple shots, and head shot or under the arm.

Body armor/ballistic protection does not mean bullet proof.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

ok,,, perfect then,,,,, i must celebrate the fact that that guy shot up the movie theatre,,,, hes just exercising his right,, it should be expected right?

The right to arms if for defense. Why would you use the actions of a criminal to argue that innocent people have no right to defend themselves? Why would you think such an argument moral, just, or ethical?

because that is what started this gun control talk,.,..,.,.,.,.,., a man with a gun can turn into a criminal as fast as that kid walked out his door and headed toward that theater,

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Why not take a look at Cook County, Chicago.

There, they have a law against handgun ownership.

So there must not be any deaths due to gunfire, correct?

i mean anyone with any means of getting a gun can use that gun to kill someone,,,,,

I personally understand that having a gun in your house in case someone breaks in is a good defensive idea, and can make you feel safe,,,,,, i personally wouldnt feel safe if everyone in a city was walking around with a gun on their person,,,,

reply to post by ImaFungi

because that is what started this gun control talk,.,..,.,.,.,.,., a man with a gun can turn into a criminal as fast as that kid walked out his door and headed toward that theater,

That kid headed towards the theater could have just as easily been killed by an oncoming car and that oncoming car could have just as easily been a speeding police officer, but no one will call for automobile control as in limiting who can own one. The gun control advocated salivate for moments like this and are fully prepared to bring out their talking points, the grieving be damned, their political ambitions are all that matters. Praise this all you want, don't expect I to be impressed with it.

Criminals also profit from tighter gun control laws the tighter stricter they get the more they make off selling them on the street, and they still don't stop crime.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Why not take a look at Cook County, Chicago.

There, they have a law against handgun ownership.

So there must not be any deaths due to gunfire, correct?

i mean anyone with any means of getting a gun can use that gun to kill someone,,,,,

I personally understand that having a gun in your house in case someone breaks in is a good defensive idea, and can make you feel safe,,,,,, i personally wouldnt feel safe if everyone in a city was walking around with a gun on their person,,,,

When I lived in Utah, the dads in my neighborhood took turns monitoring the bus stops for the kids.
We all had C&C permits, and we all took turns. (I had mondays).

Different strokes I guess.

Personally, I felt safer in my town in Utah than I ever did when I lived in Cook County.

Did not take you long to utilize this latest tragedy to forward your talking points. How convenient. I believe there is a word for that.

[color=#606060]Opportunism

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

because that is what started this gun control talk,.,..,.,.,.,.,., a man with a gun can turn into a criminal as fast as that kid walked out his door and headed toward that theater,

That kid headed towards the theater could have just as easily been killed by an oncoming car and that oncoming car could have just as easily been a speeding police officer, but no one will call for automobile control as in limiting who can own one. The gun control advocated salivate for moments like this and are fully prepared to bring out their talking points, the grieving be damned, their political ambitions are all that matters. Praise this all you want, don't expect I to be impressed with it.

i dont think guns should exist so i really shouldnt be in this argument,, but since they do i guess its mine and everyone elses problem,,,, if they must exist I can only hope alot of people are massacred with them until they are better controlled,, im only upset with the massive amounts of money the makers of the guns receive,, but thats the beauty of your free market,,, sell death if theres a buyer,

reply to post by ImaFungi

i dont think guns should exist so i really shouldnt be in this argument,

If it wasn't for guns this nation would not exist from the revolutionary war to present both foreign and domestic they made possible all those other rights deemed in the constitution.

IT isn't the gun it is the person behind the trigger just as it has always been

IT isn't isn't alcohol it is the person who drinks it.

IT isn't any other thing in the world it is the person and some people are just plain born wrong.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Why not take a look at Cook County, Chicago.

There, they have a law against handgun ownership.

So there must not be any deaths due to gunfire, correct?

i mean anyone with any means of getting a gun can use that gun to kill someone,,,,,

I personally understand that having a gun in your house in case someone breaks in is a good defensive idea, and can make you feel safe,,,,,, i personally wouldnt feel safe if everyone in a city was walking around with a gun on their person,,,,

When I lived in Utah, the dads in my neighborhood took turns monitoring the bus stops for the kids.
We all had C&C permits, and we all took turns. (I had mondays).

Different strokes I guess.

Personally, I felt safer in my town in Utah than I ever did when I lived in Cook County.

I live in new york city,..,, along with 8 million other people,,, i cant imagine if every single person had a gun.,,... especially people that work during the day,, have children and live in a one bedroom apartment.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
because that is what started this gun control talk,.,..,.,.,.,.,., a man with a gun can turn into a criminal as fast as that kid walked out his door and headed toward that theater,

I think this is an important statement relating to this discussion.

Gun advocates are arguing that a rational, reasonable person should have a firearm. That inherently involves a form of gun control to only rational, reasonable people.

Seemingly rational, reasonable people are fully capable of crime. What indications do we have from James Holmes? None until two months ago. So even the restriction to rational, reasonable people isn't an answer. Gun control is not the only answer in this Colorado incident. The fact that the acquisition of the AR-15 would've been impossible for this young man eight years ago is important because he likely wouldn't have been capable of firing as many rounds as he did.

Crime will always happen, I argue it could happen less if we have much more restrictive gun laws. Elimination or re-interpretation of the second amendment even. I see no way of ensuring a greater level of safety by allowing more people to have guns.

reply to post by ImaFungi


Typical of the idealist Marxist who insists that the heavily regulated markets of today are "free markets", they also want a world that doesn't exist, and in lieu of that want to impose all sorts of oppression to mold that non-existent world into their own creation, and failing that, they wish for the death of countless souls so they can smugly cross their arms and feign sadness as they shake their heads and say "I told you so".

Long before Marx, there were oppressive governments using arms to strengthen their oppression of innocent people and if Marxists ever get their way, it will no doubt be by the point of gun.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

i dont think guns should exist so i really shouldnt be in this argument,

If it wasn't for guns this nation would not exist from the revolutionary war to present both foreign and domestic they made possible all those other rights deemed in the constitution.

IT isn't the gun it is the person behind the trigger just as it has always been

IT isn't isn't alcohol it is the person who drinks it.

IT isn't any other thing in the world it is the person and some people are just plain born wrong.

edit on 22-7-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

again,, people are idiots,,, war is never truly nessacery,,, all things could have happened with out guns,, except for mass amounts of death,

reply to post by ImaFungi


You know, if it wasn't for guns, people would be stabbing, burning and glassing each other instead.

again,, people are idiots,,, war is never truly nessacery,,, all things could have happened with out guns,, except for mass amounts of death,

Learn how to string a coherent sentence together before calling anyone an idiot.

reply to post by ImaFungi


That is where your wrong mankind is not different in 10,000 years first it was stones, then knives, then arrows, then the gun.

People have killed the innocents during that time and they will continue to do so Governments of man can't stop that they will never be able to legislate behavior.

They never will the only thing they have done time and time again is create more victims.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Typical of the idealist Marxist who insists that the heavily regulated markets of today are "free markets", they also want a world that doesn't exist, and in lieu of that want to impose all sorts of oppression to mold that non-existent world into their own creation, and failing that, they wish for the death of countless souls so they can smugly cross their harms and feign sadness as they shake their heads and say "I told you so".

Long before Marx, there were oppressive governments using arms to strengthen their oppression of innocent people and if Marxists ever get their way, it will no doubt be by the point of gun.

typical realist,,, whos real world is a real piece of snip

If Charlton Heston were still alive today, I'm sure he would be one of the first people down there. Smack in the middle of Colorado, offering his opinion on the issue of "Gun Control." But look, the problem here, is not with guns. It is with the people that carry them. Not everyone in possession of an AR-15 is going to go out and play shoot-em'-up at their local entertainment attractions. The guy was troubled, and was looking for a way to vent his frustrations. Prior to this event, he was denied a membership at his local Gun Club. This due to the fact, that in response to Holmes' application, the guy who called him, was disturbed by Holmes' answering machine message.

But the gun club owner got cold feet over initiating membership proceedings after listening to the answering machine message left by Holmes at his flat. "it was bizarre guttural, freakish at best," Rotkovich said. The gun club owner left two other messages but eventually told his staff to watch out for Holmes at the July 1 orientation session and not to accept him into the club.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Again, it's not always the gun, but the person who is carrying it.